Pages

Monday, May 19, 2014

10 Biggest Pot Myths, Debunked by Science

Medical cannabis opponents are fond of promoting many myths and misconceptions about the herb. Here are the facts.

Medical cannabis is too dangerous to recommend as a medicine

The
cannabis plant and its biologically active constituents, known as
cannabinoids, possess an impressive safety profile compared to other
conventional therapeutic agents. According to the National Academy of
Sciences, Institute of Medicine,
marijuana possesses an estimated dependence liability of less than ten
percent. (Others have acknowledged that pot’s true dependence potential
is likely even lower.) This
percentage is approximately the same as anxiolytic drugs like Xanax and
Valium and far lower than that of many other licit prescription drugs
or recreational substances, like alcohol (15 percent) and tobacco (32
percent).

Moreover, unlike the active compounds in many conventional prescription medicines, cannabinoids are relatively non-toxic to fully developed healthy cells and organs. Cannabis also possesses no lethal overdose potential. As acknowledged by
no less than the DEA’s own administrative law judge, “Marijuana, in its
natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances
known to man.”Medical marijuana hasn’t yet been subjected to adequate scientific study

Cannabis
possesses a far longer history of human use as a safe and effective
therapeutic agent than virtually any comparable substance. Archeologists
have identifiedcannabis-based textiles dating to 7,000 B.C. in northern
China and the plant's use as a medicinal and agent date back nearly as
far. For example, in 2008, archeologists in Central Asia discovered over
two pounds of cannabis buried in the 2,700-year-old grave of an ancient
mummified shaman. After conducting extensive testing on the material's
potency, researchers affirmed,
"[T]he most probable conclusion ... is that [ancient] culture[s]
cultivated cannabis for pharmaceutical, psychoactive, and divinatory
purposes."

In addition, the marijuana plant is also one of the
most studied biologically active substances of modern times. A search on
PubMed, the repository for all peer-reviewed scientific papers, using
the term “marijuana” yields nearly
20,000 scientific papers referencing the plant and/or its constituents,
nearly half of which have been published just within the past decade.
By comparison, a keyword search using the term “Tylenol” yields 17,370
published papers. A keyword search using the term “ibuprofen’ yields
10,500 published paper. A keyword search using the term “Ritalin” yields
7,012 published papers, and a keyword search using the term
“hydrocodone” yields only 630 published papers.

There aren’t sufficient clinical trials evaluating pot’s safety and efficacy as a medicine

More than 100 controlled trials, involving
thousands of subjects, have evaluated the safety and efficacy of
cannabis and/or individual cannabinoids. Most recently, a review of
FDA-approved pot trials conducted by various California Universities
concluded, “Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I
classification (for cannabis) is not tenable; it is not accurate that
cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is
lacking.”

This body of clinical evidence exceeds that of many FDA-approved prescription drugs. According to a 2014 review published
in the Journal of the American Medical Association, of the 188 novel
therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between the years 2005 to 2012,
“The median number of pivotal trials per indication was two [and] 74
indications (37%) were approved on the basis of a single trial.”

No major medical or health organizations support medical marijuana access

Numerous medical and health organizations – such as the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, and the Epilepsy Foundation of America – support allowing qualified patients to legally access to cannabis therapy. Most practicing physicians do too. According to survey data released
this year by WebMD/Medscape, nearly 70 percent of doctors, including
over 80 percent of oncologists and hematologists, acknowledge the
therapeutic qualities of cannabis and 56 percent agree that it should be
a legal option for patients.

Medical cannabis laws are associated with increased crime

Not so concludes a study published
earlier this year in the scientific journal PLoS ONE. Investigators
tracked crime rates across all 50 states in the years between 1990 and
2006, during which time 11 states legalized medical cannabis access.
Authors reviewed FBI Uniform Crime Report data to determine whether
there was any association between the enactment of medical pot laws and
rates of statewide criminal activity, specifically the number of
reported crimes involving homicide, rape, robbery, assault, burglary,
larceny, and auto theft. They concluded, “The central finding gleaned
from the present study was that MML (medical marijuana legalization) is
not predictive of higher crime rates and may be related to reductions in
rates of homicide and assault. … [T]hese findings run counter to
arguments suggesting the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes
poses a danger to public health in terms of exposure to violent crime
and property crimes.”

Similarly, a 2012 federally commissioned study reported
that the establishment of cannabis dispensaries is not associated with
elevated rates of either violent crimes or property crimes. It
concluded, “There were no observed cross-sectional associations between
the density of medical marijuana dispensaries and either violent or
property crime rates in this study. These results suggest that the
density of medical marijuana dispensaries may not be associated with
crime rates.”

Medical cannabis laws increase pot use by adolescents

Wrong again.
Writing in the Journal of Adolescent Health in April, researchers at
Rhode Island Hospital and Brown University assessed the impact of
medical cannabis laws over a 20-year period by examining trends in
self-reported drug use by high schoolers in a cohort of states before
and after legalization. Investigators compared these trends to
geographically matched states that had not adopted medical marijuana
access laws during this time. They determined,
“[O]ur study of self-reported marijuana use by adolescents in states
with a medical marijuana policy compared with a sample of geographically
similar states without a policy does not demonstrate increases in
marijuana use among high school students that may be attributed to the
policies. … [C]oncerns about (medical marijuana laws) ‘sending the wrong
message’ may have been overblown.”

Inhaling medical cannabis significantly damages the lungs

According to a 2012 study published
in the Journal of the American Medical Association, subjects exposed to
moderate levels of cannabis smoke over an extended period of time do
not experience the sort of significant pulmonary harms associated with
tobacco smoking. "Our findings suggest that occasional use of marijuana
... may not be associated with adverse consequences on pulmonary
function," the study concluded.

Further, the long-term
inhalation of pot smoke is not associated with increased incidents of
lung-related cancers. According to the results of the largest
case-controlled study ever
to investigate the matter, ganja smoking is not associated with higher
incidences of cancers of the lung or upper aero-digestive tract, even
among subjects who reported smoking more than 22,000 joints over their
lifetime. Summarizing the study’s findings to the Washington Post, the
study's lead researcher, Dr. Donald Tashkin of the University of
California at Los Angeles affirmed:
"We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between
marijuana use and lung cancer, and that the association would be more
positive with heavier use. What we found instead was no association at
all, and even a suggestion of some protective effect."

No medicine is smoked

Yet
patients inhale many conventional medications, such as anti-asthma
drugs. These patients inhale conventional medications for largely the
same reasons as do medical cannabis smokers: they require rapid onset of
therapeutic drug effect, they desire the flexibility to self-regulate
their dosage depending on the circumstances, and the medication they are
administering lacks lethal overdose potential.

Further,
clinical studies assessing the efficacy of vaporization as a cannabinoid
delivery device have determined it to be a safe alternative to smoking,
concluding:
“Vaporization of marijuana does not result in exposure to combustion
gases and [was] preferred by most subjects compared to marijuana
cigarettes. … [It] is an effective and apparently safe vehicle for THC
delivery.”

There is no legitimate need for medical cannabis because Marinol is already available by prescription

Marinol is
an FDA-approved synthetic version of a single isolated compound in
cannabis. Consequently, Marinol lacks dozens of other identified,
therapeutically active components available in the plant, as well many
of the terpenes present in pot. It possesses poor bioavailability
compared to inhaled plant cannabinoids, and its mood-altering effects
tend to be far more dysphoric. Not surprisingly, when given the choice
between Marinol and whole-plant cannabis, the majority of patients choose the herbal alternative.

Cannabis isn’t medicine because the FDA has not approved its therapeutic use

The
FDA evaluates patented, synthetic products developed by private
companies. It does not evaluate naturally occurring botanical products
such as cannabis. Of course, that is not to say that the plant, in
particular a standardized variety of the herb, could not arguably meet
the conventional FDA standards of safety and efficacy. After all, humans
have consumed cannabis for thousands of years and it possesses adequate
safety profile. Further, its therapeutic utility is demonstrated in
numerous controlled trials. Arguably, by any objective analysis,
cannabis and cannabinoids exceed the FDA’s existing standards for safety
and efficacy.

Intellectual Center Reviews

Intellectual Center provides Independent News in blog format to assist other activists, teachers, and elders with alternative news, information on social issues, and research material.

FAIR USE NOTICE: Intellectual Center (Website) may post copyrighted material not specifically authorized in accordance with Section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law allowing purposes associating learning processes. Please be advised if you intend to use such copyrighted material for personal reasons beyond "fair use," considerations, please obtain permission from the copyright owner. Learning processes encompass a vast array of issues of concern and would not be restrictive, it would offer critique and extended scholarly research.

Website may display third party authors/advertising which may not represent the views or opinions of Website or contributors. Advertisements are not endorsed as such and are intended as alternative ways to support the work at Website.